Your Right to Know

Ohio’s new exotic-animal ownership rules overcame a constitutional challenge yesterday, setting
the stage for the law to be enforced.

U.S. District Judge George C. Smith said in a 46-page ruling that the law, which was passed this
year, is constitutional. He turned down a request by exotic-animal owners for a temporary
restraining order and a permanent injunction against the rules.

A group of animal owners had sued the Ohio Department of Agriculture in federal court in
Columbus, arguing that the law harms their First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights.

In an evidentiary hearing last week, some owners said the law will put them out of business
because they can’t sell animals they have bred and can’t afford new caging requirements.

The Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act was enacted after Terry W. Thompson,
who lived near Zanesville, released dozens of wild animals in October 2011 and then killed himself.
Forty-eight of Thompson’s animals had to be killed.

“The ultimate interest implicated in this case is the public interest,” Smith wrote. “While the
named plaintiffs may be responsible dangerous-wild-animal owners, there are some that are not.”

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, whose office argued for the law, said he was happy with the
decision.

So was Karen Minton, state director for the Humane Society of the United States, who intervened
in the case on the government’s side.

“The reckless individuals who created this very problem in the first place should not be allowed
to put public safety and animal welfare further at risk, and put the financial burden on Ohio
taxpayers and private groups to clean up their mess,” Minton said in a statement.

Robert M. Owens, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he’s preparing an appeal.

“Our position is, the court wrongly considered the logic of our First Amendment claim,” he said.
“We’re very disappointed, especially since the court essentially adopted the Humane Society’s
logic.”

Under the First Amendment, citizens can ask the government to right a wrong through the courts.
In his ruling, Smith said the state had “a legitimate government purpose behind the enactment of
this act — to protect animal welfare and public safety from threats posed by certain dangerous wild
animals.”

He said animal owners “failed to prove that defendants have violated their due process rights”
under the Ohio and U.S. constitutions.

The new law allows current owners to keep their animals if they register them with the state,
have identification microchips implanted in them, pay permit fees, obtain insurance and meet
requirements for such things as cages, fencing and signage.

Some owners argued in court that microchipping animals can be dangerous.